Bloggers are not Journalists, NJ appellate court decides

[n2doc]

Would-Be News Blogger Must Disclose Sources, Court Rules
By Kim Zetter April 26, 2010 | 3:35 pm | Categories: Breaches, Crime, The Courts
An aspiring blogger who says she was investigating a company for possible fraud must reveal the sources behind statements she posted online, a New Jersey appellate court ruled last week, in a rare case examining who has the right to legal protections extended to journalists.

The court ruled that Shellee Hale, who has been sued for defamation, is not a journalist and is therefore not protected by the state’s shield law.

“Simply put, new media should not be confused with news media,” wrote Superior Court Appellate Judge Anthony J. Parrillo.

The case involves a high-profile 2007 computer security breach at a software company called Too Much Media. Following the breach, Hale accused the company or an employee of fraudulent acts against its customers within the online adult entertainment business. TMM sued Hale for defamation, and sought to depose her to identify the sources she claimed were behind her allegations.

Hale countered that she was a journalist, and asserted protection under New Jersey’s shield law, which generally protects reporters from being forced to identify their sources.

The claim was unusual since Hale’s accusations were posted to the comments section of a message board, and not her own blog. But she was in the process of setting up her own website, which she said would offer the public information about “scams, fraud, technological issues” in the adult entertainment industry.



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/04/too-much-media/

[rfranklin]

1. She's more of a journalist than any Fox News bimbo...

This will not stand.

[Kalyke]

3. I see your point as it relates to Faux "News," but bloggers aren't journalists.

Real journalists are trained in communications law, how to practice the inverted pyramid form of writing, interviewing, sourcing and investigating.

Sadly, there are far more "pretty faces" - i.e. winners of beauty contests and/or models - who "act" as journalists now than there are real journalists.

Most of us classically trained journalists have left the profession in order to either make more money (most hometown reporters make far, far less than the average elementary school teacher) or to keep from selling out.

[ixion]

2. score one for the status quo and the Corporate Police State.

:(

[blogslut]

4. This person made defamatory remarks on a message board

It's not quite journalism. She made claims against a company that manages webmaster affiliate programs on a couple of high-traffic adult webmaster message boards and that company sued her.

[tonysam]

5. She just spouted off. Not too smart.

If she really had something, she should have contacted a legitimate paper and let them deal with the consequences.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blogslut]

7. Groan

Actually, this defendant didn't make the claims as a blogger and she followed no journalistic standards. She made the claims as a commentor on a message board.

This is a defamation case - not a case about whether or not a blogger is protected under shield laws. She merely used that as a defense and the judge didn't buy it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you've already eaten your pizza

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=258170

[madinmaryland]

12. How does that affect commentors on DU?? Can we get

sued for defamation for making claims??

[blogslut]

14. I guess if one were to make

...defamatory claims against a company or individual within the confines of this board, then the party in question may take it upon themselves to bring suit.

In my biz, companies like "Too Much Media" are responsible for millions of dollars and don't take it lightly when someone posts stuff that might hurt their business. Most of the time, these kinds of posts are made by people from the adult webmastering world and everybody knows who everyone is. This stuff is usually resolved in a few epic threads wherein the complaining webmaster is either vindicated or shamed as a laughing stock.

This case was different. This woman was not an adult webmaster and was in fact, an anti-porn crusader. She joined some boards under porn-sounding usernames and made theses claims against TMM. Being that most adult webmaster message boards depend on advertising dollars from companies such as TMM, I guessing the administrators were more than happy to divulge her IP and contact info.

[paulsby]

15. of COURSE you can

but that was true long before this decision

[Subdivisions]

9. How's that pizza? n/t

[Uncle Joe]

11. Not "Fame," it's "All That Jazz," here's some going away music for your departing enjoyment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNcl0L7eJUY

[Subdivisions]

8. 'Journalists' are not even journalists anymore. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Journalists are not entitled to any rights beyond the rights of a citizen. Peri-fucking-od.

This whole area is such a fucking joke I can't believe. (And never have been able to believe it.)

Working for a certain corporation does not give you enhanced Constitutional Rights.

Insanity.

The problem with this case is not that bloggers are journalists (they are, as if anyone cares) but that any special constitutional protection for 'journalists' is un-fucking-constitutional. (Yes, courts created this shit but it is still unconstitutional in the way exempting church land from taxation is facially unconstitutional even though we do it.)

I swear to god... some people seem to actually think "freedom of the press" refers to the press, like Meet the Press.

It doesn't. It refers to the printing press (which would make Meet the Press a more entertaining show) and is a metaphor and printing a magazine and posting some shit on the internet are both publication and that's what is protected and that is fucking IT.

If the issue is defamation, a journalist should have no enhanced right to defame any more than a Lutheran of veteran or stay-at-home-mom should have an enhanced right to defame... everyone is supposed to have the same rights.

And if the issue is telling the government who told you something, everyone should have precisely the same right to not tell the government stuff, or the same liability to tell.

And if somebody makes up their own religion they shouldn't have to pay taxes because it is supposed to be as valid a religion as any other in the eyes of the government which isn't supposed to be in the determination-of-which-religions-are-valid business, which would end the non-taxation of churches pretty fast.

But the IRS has a division that decides which religions are valid. And the courts give extra rights to 'journalists' they deem valid. And it's all fucking nuts.

[Dr. Strange]

13. Spot on.

:thumbsup: